Is the Koran desirable?

Since I posted the piece entitled "Is the Koran actionable?" I have come to realise that the real problem of the Koran lies not in the isolated verses where it steps over the lines (lines which were drawn by mere mortals in the House of Commons committees which frame our laws), but in its pervading paranoid tribalist mindset. Geert Wilders's film Fitna also makes a verse-by-verse indictment, which though it pinpoints different verses as objectionable, fails to answer the broader question of whether we would want such a publication even with the offending verses removed? Threatening hellfire on unbelievers (fakirs), and those who pretend to believe (the muneffekhs) is not illegal because the punishment is posthumous and does not constitute assault under English law. Still, Geert is to be saluted for taking on the fight, albeit obliged to resort to legalistic nitpicking curiously reminiscent of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. The truth is, for dealing with fire breathers, England was never more in need of this gentleman:

Given the prickly sensibilities involved, the best I can do for the concerned reader is direct him to a page where he can download
St George screensavers. If you get an error message, copy the address from the address bar (Ctrl+C), say a little prayer to St George and then paste it back in in the same place (Ctrl+V). Don't ask why that works.

Is the Koran actionable?

Muslims in the UK and other countries trying to have incitement to hatred on grounds of religious belief banned could be shooting themselves in the foot. Drafters of such a law will have to tread pretty carefully if they want to avoid having the Koran itself withdrawn from shelves.

Muslims are known to revere the text and are categorically opposed to the idea of changing one iota - or hamza - despite the book's evident need of a good editor or ghost writer to sort out its rambling, incoherent style, its ranting tone and penchant for self-serving anachronisms such as the claim that Abraham was a muslim. And that's before we even look at the legal aspects.

One group who might consider itself poorly treated if the book is allowed to continue to be available in public libraries is the growing majority of atheists which the Koran calls unbelievers. To find out if the text actually incites hatred of this group, nothing simpler than to type in the word "unbeliever" into the searchbox of the searchable online Koran.

What the search reveals is that although Allah is going to do unspeakably horrid things to unbelievers, the believers themselves are simply enjoined not to number unbelievers among their friends. So the question boils down to does sending to Coventry count as an act of hatred, or do you have to be more beastly?

An alternative way to resolve the conundrum would be to substitute the word "muslims" for "unbelievers" into the results of the search, and ask muslim lawyers if they consider the resulting sentences actionable. If so then they must be equally actionable in their original form.

They might then contend that incitement to hatred on grounds of belief does not include incitement on the grounds of unbelief . Do unbelievers not believe anything, or can it be claimed they actively believe there is no God? The simple solution to protect everyone's rights would be to insert the words "or unbelief" after belief, so that the wording reads "incitement to hatred on grounds of religious belief or unbelief".

While I feel that the book could incite impressionable minds to a paranoid world view and should therefore not be given to children, the incitement to actual hatred is not explicit enough to merit outright banning, and anyone who hates people as a result of reading it is the sort of crackpot who probably hates people without the need for literary justification.

As I said, in framing such a bill careful attention will need to be paid to the choice of words, the more so as it is too late to ask the book's author to measure his.